Congressional Budget for the United States Government for the Fiscal Year 2006

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2006 -- (Senate - March 15, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I intend to support the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Conrad, which, in effect, says: Save Social Security first. Make Social Security a priority when we evaluate what we want to do around here. There are a whole series of options that we face: increase spending, cut taxes or do both of these things. What my colleague is saying is, save Social Security. Save Social Security first.

I also intend to support the amendment offered by my colleague from Florida, Mr. Nelson. Senator Nelson's amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that Congress should reject any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt.

Now, why is Senator Nelson offering that amendment? Well, because we have the memorandum that was leaked from the White House in January that outlined the plan that the President's chief strategist on Social Security was offering. The plan was relatively simple. The plan is, borrow a lot of money up front, anywhere from $1 to $5 trillion, depending on how long a time you measure it. Borrow a lot of money. Put it in the stock market. Change the indexing formula in Social Security to cut benefits. Then you have borrowed money in the stock market, with Social Security benefit cuts. Then you just sit back and wait and hope that everything is going to be all right.

At the end of that memorandum from the White House it says this, which is very revealing: It says, ``This is the first time in six decades we have had an opportunity to win on Social Security.'' We know what that means. They go back to Alf Landon, when they debated this Social Security bill in the 1930s. They did not like it then. Some still do not like it. They would like to take it apart.

Now, the President began at his State of the Union Address, and around the State of the Union Address other members of the administration said the Social Security system is in crisis. They used the terms, ``bankrupt,'' ``flat broke,'' ``busted.'' None of that is true.

It is the case, according to the Congressional Budget Office, that Social Security, as a program, will be solvent until President George W. Bush is 106 years old. Let me say that again. The Congressional Budget Office says the Social Security system will be fully solvent until President George W. Bush is 106 years old. Now, they did not say the ``Bush, 106 years old'' piece. They just described how many years it would be solvent. I have calculated, then, the President would be 106 years old at that point.

Is that a crisis? No, it is not a crisis. People are living longer, healthier lives. We may have to make some adjustments to Social Security, but it does not require major surgery, and it is not a justification for President Bush's plan to begin taking Social Security apart, creating privatized accounts. It is not a justification for that.

Now, in many ways, this is about values. I respect those who believe Social Security should never have been adopted. I do not agree with them. I respect their right to take that viewpoint. I respect those who want to take the Social Security system apart right now. I do not agree with that either, but I respect their right to make that case.

But it seems to me if you go back to 1935 at a time in this country when 50 percent of America's senior citizens were living in poverty, this country decided: We cannot have that. We are not going to allow that to happen. So we created an insurance program. Yes, it is insurance not investments. The FICA, the tax that is taken out of your check every month--the ``I'' in FICA is insurance. That is what it means, insurance. It is the program that would always be there. You could count on it. It is guaranteed. It is not the risk piece. The antithesis of security is risk. It is the portion of retirement security that will be there. That is what it was created for.

The woman who received the first Social Security check in 1940 and the tens of millions of American senior citizens who have received Social Security since have, in many cases, been lifted out of poverty by this single act. Some say, well, it is something that should never have been done. One of the leading voices on the far right says Social Security is a soft underbelly of the liberal welfare state. That describes the mindset of people who don't want the Social Security program to exist, the kind of people who voted against it in the 1930s.

As I said, this is about values, what is important to us. Some come to the floor and say the most important thing, by far, is to eliminate the death tax--a tax which doesn't exist, incidentally. There is no death tax in America. There is a tax on inherited wealth. I spoke yesterday about that. Warren Buffett, the world's second richest man, makes the point that if the majority party gets its way with respect to the ``death tax'' and exempting dividends from taxation and so on, the world's second richest man will be paying one-tenth the tax rate that the receptionist in his office pays. That is from him, not me. Warren Buffett says under their plan he would end up paying a 3-percent tax, and the receptionist in his office, with the payroll taxes, would end up paying a 30-percent tax.

I asked the question yesterday, why do we have the philosophy in the Chamber that seems to say let's tax work, but let's exempt investment? Is work less worthy? Is it really less worthy? Don't we value work? Don't we honor work? Don't we connect effort and reward? There are some who come to the Chamber and say, look, there are priorities that are more important than Social Security. Cutting the tax on dividends and interest on passive income, eliminating the so-called death tax--despite the fact that there is no death tax--they spend money to do that. That is more important to them than the Social Security program.

I happen to think the Social Security program works well, and has for a long while and will continue for a long while. It will be solvent for 75 years with any kind of reasonable economic growth, with no changes. But assuming we get a pessimistic rate of growth for 75 years, 1.9 percent compared to the 3.4 percent we had in the previous 75 years, assume, as the actuaries do, that we have an anemic growth of 1.9 percent, then we would have to make adjustments.

But that is not a pretext for what President Bush wants to do. What he wants to do is simple. He said it in 1978 when he ran for Congress. In 1978, when he ran for Congress, he said that Social Security will be broke in 10 years. He meant 1988. Of course, that didn't happen. It wasn't true at the time. He said Social Security will be broke in 10 years and we ought to go to privatized accounts.

So this is not new. It is not even about economics. It is about a philosophy, about a decision and a desire to take apart the Social Security program. The question for this Congress is: Does Social Security have merit and worth for this country? Has it improved this country? Is it a part of this country's decisionmaking over the last century that has improved America?

In my judgment, the answer is yes. We have done a lot of things together. We decided in the last century about a lot of issues. Some of them were hard. We had people die in the streets of this country who demonstrated for the right for workers to organize. People literally died in the streets as a result of violence over the issue of whether American workers should be allowed to organize. Should they expect to be able to work in safe workplaces, safe plants. Should we have child labor laws. Should we have a minimum wage. Should we stop companies from dumping chemicals and sewage into the water and the air. And in the panoply of all of those decisions, one was to say it is intolerable that half of our senior citizens live in poverty. These are the people who helped build our country, the people who understood about going to a barnraising for the neighbor, about building a community, starting a church in a small town, about trying to raise a family by raising a crop, and hoping that crop produces something you can sell in the fall to keep your family over the winter. Yes, the people who worked in the factories, as well, that began to mass-produce products. These are the workers of America who helped build this great country of ours. We decided it is intolerable that one-half of them, when they reach their declining income years and retirement, should live in poverty; it is intolerable, as good as this country is.

So we contribute each month from our paycheck--all workers do--into a fund called Social Security. There are a lot of things you don't know about growing old. You don't know about your health. You don't know which of your relatives will survive to be helpful to you when you grow old. But you do know this: If you work and if you had an investment from your paycheck in the required number of quarters, Social Security will be there for you. You do know that. That is important.

Because we know that and because we now have nearly 70 years of experience with this program, we ought to understand that this ranks right near the top of the things we need to do to make this a better country: Preserve, strengthen, and nurture the Social Security system for the long term.

I oppose the President's proposal. I think it is a proposal that will begin to take apart the Social Security program. I support the amendments that will be offered and voted on this afternoon. Those amendments make good sense and they move us in the direction of deciding the following: We are going to strengthen and preserve Social Security for the long term. It ranks as a priority, the highest priority for this Congress.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for Senator STABENOW's amendment to restore funding for our first responders, including local law enforcement. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment. We cannot continue to cut justice assistance program funding, particularly Byrne grant, local law enforcement block grants, and COPS funding.

The Byrne Grant Program, which was merged last year with the LLEBG program in a move I did not support, is vital to the efforts of local law enforcement in Montana to combat methamphetamine and other illicit drugs. I have heard this again and again and again, from local law enforcement agencies to the Montana Narcotics Officers Association to the Governor's office to the attorney general's office. The Byrne program helps communities hire additional local law enforcement, operate drug task forces, and send local law enforcement to drug training.

Unfortunately, the President's budget proposes an elimination of the Byrne Grant Program. This combined with cuts proposed by the President to the high intensity drug trafficking area HIDTA, program and other justice assistance programs, would be a disaster for Montana. It would set the clock back years in our efforts to fight the rapid spread of methamphetamine in Montana.

According to the Montana Board of Crime Control, this is what will happen to Montana if the President's fiscal year 2006 budget is enacted:

1. Montana will lose its multijurisdiction drug enforcement capacity, including seven multijurisdictional drug task forces. This means that already stretched local law enforcement agencies will have to do what they can to address drug enforcement at the local level, without broader support from the drug task forces.

2. Montana will lose 33 drug enforcement offices throughout the State.

3. Montana will experience a significant increase in drug availability, manufacturing and trafficking and drug-related crime.

4. Montana would experience an increase in clandestine labs that manufacture methamphetamine.

5. Montana would experience a reduction in the amounts of illegal drugs and guns removed from our communities.

6. Montana would experience the elimination of funds for rural law enforcement agencies' manpower, equipment, and training.

The above impacts translate to a complete loss of rural drug enforcement in Montana and are only the tip of the iceberg. The manufacturing, trafficking, drug addiction, and crime will have a ripple effect throughout the State in our public health and correction systems and the courts, negatively affecting public safety and the quality of life in Montana.

The Byrne program and similar programs support the majority of pro-active drug enforcement in the 56 counties of my State. This is because we are spread so thin across a vast area with a small population and an international border--Byrne is essential to us.

To protect our kids and our communities--our homeland--we have to continue aggressive drug enforcement across Montana. We have to continue teaching hundreds of classes to the good citizens helping to stop the spread of drugs like meth, including realtors, retailers, civil groups, and other local law enforcement agencies. Byrne funding is the difference between stopping a few street level drug sales and stopping drug manufacturing and distribution on a much larger scale.

Working hand-in-hand with Byrne Grant Program funding is the COPS Program. The COPS Program helps pay for all meth lab cleanups in Montana, protecting children and others from the harmful health impacts of the chemicals used to make meth. Additionally, the COPS Program helps provide for more law enforcement in drug enforcement units, while maintaining enough police officers patrolling our streets.

According to the president of the Montana Association of Chiefs of Police, COPS funding is necessary to maintain an adequate number of police in the field to protect our communities. He has told me that without COPS funding, the number of crimes, especially violent crimes, will begin to rise again. And currently, there is no other alternative to the COPS Program. He tells me that the COPS Program is one of those programs that works, one of those programs that is directly responsible for protecting our communities, for getting the officers out on the street to protect us all.

In short, the Byrne and COPS Programs represent a relatively minor Federal investment in our local communities that pays huge dividends in terms of the health and safety of our citizens. We are also talking about communities that cannot foot the bill by themselves, particularly in a rural, low-population State like Montana. We just can't kid ourselves that the money will magically appear elsewhere.

I guarantee that Montana is not the only State that will suffer a dramatic loss in drug enforcement capability under the President's proposed budget. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the important amendment of the Senator from Michigan. We cannot shortchange our law enforcement--stopping the spread of illegal drugs is important to the security of our homeland, too.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am advantaged from having heard twice today the proposition by the Senator from Utah--once in committee and now on the floor of the Senate. I always enjoy his presentations. I confess--and perhaps others will, too--to some nostalgia. We used to name trains. In my hometown, the train that came through was called the Galloping Goose. I used to watch that train come in to pick up the cream cans. I loved the Galloping Goose. I admit to some nostalgia, but this debate is not about nostalgia.

There is a story about a guy who, in 1896, went to Waco, TX, where a railroad company was going to destroy a couple of locomotives they were done using. They decided to put on an extravaganza. They were going to run the locomotives together, and 40,000 people showed up to watch. They ran them together in a demonstrated train wreck, and metal flew, as did sparks and steam and fire.

There was a boy named Joe Connolly--this is a great story about Joe. He discovered that people would come to watch a train wreck. Joe Connolly thought, I am going to sponsor train wrecks. He was a guy from Iowa. He sponsored 71 train wrecks in his career. His last train wreck was in 1932 at the Iowa State Fair. He built 3,000 feet of track, got two old locomotives that were about to be abandoned, and ran them together at 50 miles an hour. He had people pay from miles around to see the train wreck. They called him ``head-on Joe Connolly'' because he sponsored 71 train wrecks. What a great story.

You don't have to go to an Iowa State Fair to see a train wreck these days. You can see it right here in the middle of this budget document. That is why Senator Byrd is on the floor with his amendment. He says that Amtrak is worthy, that rail passenger service in this country ought to be a national enterprise. I fully agree. We will always have rail passenger service connecting Boston to Florida because there are millions of people living on that eastern corridor. So that will be self-sufficient--rail passenger service on the eastern corridor of the United States. The question is: Will we be able to maintain a national rail passenger system? Is it worthy to do so? I believe the answer is yes. Senator Byrd believes the answer is yes.

We have a train that comes through my part of the country. It goes from Chicago, up to Minneapolis, over to Fargo, up north all the way to Seattle, down to Portland. It is called the Empire Builder. It has been around for decades. When it comes through the State of North Dakota, it picks up nearly 90,000 people in a year. For them, traveling on the Empire Builder is not nostalgia, it is necessary. It is one part of a transportation system in a rural State that doesn't have very many transportation systems.

We don't have the kind of aviation service, commercial air service, they have in Chicago, for example. We don't have the bus service they have in New York. But the fact is, we have Amtrak coming through our part of the country as part of a national rail passenger service. I don't object at all to subsidizing it. Every other country in the world that has rail passenger service subsidizes the service. In fact, we subsidize every other kind of transportation service in this country, so why all of a sudden do we decide that somehow rail passenger service is unworthy of our support?

My colleague from Utah used the term ``mass transit'' this morning when describing Amtrak. Amtrak is not mass transit. I support mass transit, and we don't have any in North Dakota. We don't have a subway in Bismarck or in Fargo, or light rail. I support mass transit because I believe we ought to do that for the major cities of our country. This is not mass transit. Amtrak is rail passenger service that has been, in my judgment, spectacularly successful. Despite that, we have always had people who want to disband it, take it apart, get rid of it. Why? Because they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. This service has great value for our country. The relatively small subsidy that is required to retain a national rail passenger system is dwarfed by the subsidies in many other areas of transportation.

I understand why some would apply a profitability test to everything. I said to my colleague from Utah this morning that my guess is when they built the four-lane interstate highway system, somebody might have said there is a segment that we question: from Dickinson, ND, to Beach, ND, through the western badlands of North Dakota. There are not many people living there, and there is probably not so much traffic on that four-lane interstate highway. Or perhaps from Beach, ND, to Miles City, MT, or Billings--there is not enough traffic out there, not enough people living there to justify putting in four lanes. You know something? The country understood this was all about bridges--a bridge from here to there. So, too, is Amtrak and the Empire Builder a bridge from here to there. We understand that it stops in my State because it goes from Chicago to Seattle. It picks up nearly 90,000 people, including retired people, in the State of North Dakota.

Look, I think this is a bargain by any stretch. I support the Byrd amendment because I believe it is the right thing for this country to do.

It is all about choices. It is always, with respect to this budget when it comes to the floor of the Senate, about choices. I am absolutely surprised at some of the choices that are made and then very surprised at some of the issues other people think are unworthy for this country's enterprise.

Rail passenger service is a service that I think is important to our country. If one decides that this is all about profit and loss and not about a national transportation system that includes rail passenger service than I understand. We will have locomotives, we will have electric trains, we will have Acela trains running from Boston to Florida, and God bless them. We will wave at them as they go by, and good for all of them.

This country can, will, and should do much better and did do much better a couple of decades ago by creating a system that works. I have ridden Amtrak many times, and I like riding Amtrak. I hope that when the dust settles around here, we will have decided, once again, as a Congress that having a national rail passenger system is worthy.

I know the President believes differently. I had the president and CEO of Amtrak come into my office. I wanted to talk with him about what was happening and what was necessary. He made it plain--and I understood it before he came in--that if the President's recommendation is adopted, there will simply be no national rail passenger system. Amtrak, as we know it, will not exist.

That is a choice that perhaps the majority of Congress might want to make. I hope they will not choose to make that choice, but that is what the Byrd amendment is about. That is why it is on the floor of the Senate, and that is why it is important.

I came over to speak on this amendment because I believe an important part of this country is its transportation system, the ability of people to move around and to get around, to have access. And one part of that having a national rail passenger system that works. Yes, it requires a subsidy, and I believe that is appropriate. I am perfectly willing to do as every other industrialized country has done, and that is subsidize rail passenger service. It is not a large subsidy relative to everything else we do in the Chamber of the Senate.

My hope is, as I said, when the dust settles, we will decide to reject the recommendations of the President and this Budget Committee and continue to fund the national rail passenger system.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov